When a carmaker needs patented technology that all of its rivals need too, can it come to an English court to find out what a fair licence should cost — even when the patents are bundled into a global platform run by an agent? On 27 July 2026 the Supreme Court held that the question can at least be asked here. In Tesla, Inc v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc [2026] UKSC 27, the Court allowed Tesla’s appeal — reversing the Court of Appeal — holding there is a serious issue to be tried on its claim for a declaration of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) licence terms, and that the English courts have jurisdiction to hear it.
What the case was about
Tesla’s US parent and its UK subsidiary wanted to launch 5G-enabled vehicles in the UK, which requires a licence to the “standard essential patents” (“SEPs”) that the 5G standard depends on (paras 2, 41). A large proportion of those SEPs — including InterDigital’s — are offered through a single global platform run by Avanci as agent for the owners: a licensee pays one fee for all the SEPs on it (paras 23, 33). By the first hearing more than 65 patent owners (holding an estimated 170,000 declared 5G SEPs, about 11,900 of them UK patents) and more than 31 vehicle makers had joined (para 35). Thinking Avanci’s rate too high, Tesla sued before launching for declarations that it was entitled to a FRAND licence of InterDigital’s UK SEPs on the platform and that the rate was not FRAND (para 42). Fancourt J struck those “Licensing Claims” out and declined jurisdiction (para 53), and the Court of Appeal dismissed Tesla’s appeal by a majority, Arnold LJ dissenting (para 58).
What the Supreme Court decided
Lord Hamblen and Lord Kitchin, for a unanimous Court (with Lord Sales, Lord Briggs and Lord Burrows), allowed Tesla’s appeal (para 220). There was a serious issue to be tried on whether a SEP owner stays bound by its FRAND obligation when it licenses through a pool or platform: nothing in ETSI’s policy suggests it falls away because owners license jointly through an agent, and joining a platform does not release an owner from a promise already given (paras 83–84, 89). There was also a real prospect of showing that the only FRAND licence of InterDigital’s UK SEPs is the global platform licence at a FRAND rate (paras 96, 103), though the Court rejected Tesla’s wider argument that every offer must be FRAND (para 94). Although the licence Tesla seeks would be global, the claims were properly characterised as principally concerning the FRAND obligations attached to InterDigital’s UK SEPs (para 177), so they were validly served on the UK patent owner under CPR r 63.14(2) and the other InterDigital party was a necessary or proper party (paras 189, 193); and Delaware was not an available forum, since on the expert evidence a US court was unlikely to set FRAND terms for the UK patents in issue (paras 209–216). Tesla therefore has a real prospect of obtaining the declarations and its claims can proceed to trial (para 131) — though the Court was deciding only whether Tesla’s case was arguable enough to proceed, not whether the Avanci rate is in fact non-FRAND, nor what the licence terms should be.
Why it matters
- FRAND promises follow SEPs onto a platform. A patent owner does not shed its promise to license on fair terms merely by pooling its patents with others through an agent — at least, that is now clearly arguable and headed for trial (paras 84, 89).
- Implementers can go on the front foot. Building on Unwired Planet v Huawei [2020] UKSC 37, the decision supports an implementer — not just a SEP owner — asking the English court to settle FRAND terms, and doing so in respect of a multi-owner platform licence (paras 127–128).
- English jurisdiction remains available for implementer-led platform claims. Because the claim is characterised as principally about UK patents, it can be served here and is not displaced to the United States; on the evidence, the Delaware court was not an available forum for the dispute as characterised (paras 205, 216).
Free to search across 25 official UK databases — no account needed. Explore the authorities behind this case:
Read the full judgment: Tesla, Inc and another v InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc and others [2026] UKSC 27 (full text on Search the Law).